The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
- Delete. --Yair rand (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. --Vahag 16:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- See Talk:Jackson and Wiktionary:Tea room/2010/August#Wren.We have dozens - hundreds? - of definitions like these. Why delete Disney if Jackson and Wren are kept? I would Delete all definitions of persons by their real surname. There are many acceptable ways to mention the person in the entry: 1.Example sentence or citation: "Walt Disney was a motion picture producer", 2.A derived term: Disneyland, 3.External link to Wikipedia disambiguation page or to w:Walter Disney, 4:Definition like "A surname, notably of the motion picture producer w:Walt Disney", the least desirable solution because we'd end up debating who is notable enough.--Makaokalani 17:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. For community opinion, see also Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2010/December#Poll: Including individual people, although it does not follow from the poll that "Disney" in particular has to be kept. --Dan Polansky 07:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The following definition was removed by Equinox. My take is that it should not be a distinct definition since it still refers to the Walt Disney Company, though erroneously. DAVilla 02:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- (proscribed, rare) An incorrect name sometimes used to refer to other, non-Disney, animation companies, apparently expressing some amount of confusion or misinfirmation on the part of the speaker.
(Can we date this quote?), Arthur Symons, The Savoy: an illustrated monthly of 1896 reproduced in five volumes, 3 edition, Frank Cass and Co., page 232:
- Much of the world got its first glimpse of Aaliyah three years ago when she sang the Oscar-nominated "Journey to the Past" from Disney's Anastasia at the 1998 Academy Awards.
2004, Mark Axelrod, Character and Conflict: The Cornerstones of Screenwriting, illustrated edition, Heinemann, ISBN 9780325006970, page 22:
- [...] an almost identical situation happens in Disney' Shrek.
2010, Gail Ashton, Medieval English Romance in Context, Continuum International Publishing Group, ISBN 9781847062505, page 142:
- The highly successful Star Wars franchise borrows heavily from Arthurian quest tradition, as do films such as Disney' Shrek (2001) [...]
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Rfv-sense X 4. Various entities connected with the corporate entity. I believe each needs to be separately attested under WT:BRAND, but in any event, attested. There is a missing sense of the same type without the very specific entities that, I think, may be more easily attested under WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 19:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note that I just removed another Daniel sense: "An incorrect name sometimes used to refer to other, non-Disney, animation companies, apparently expressing some amount of confusion or misinfirmation on the part of the speaker." This is like somebody mistaking one kind of flower for another and giving it the wrong name. Certainly not for a dictionary to clear up. Equinox ◑ 13:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Two senses RFV-failed, one passed. One sense remains to be cited. - -sche (discuss) 21:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Additional discussion was archived to Special:PermanentLink/22590637#Disney. - -sche (discuss) 05:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
A request for verification of the proper noun (Talk:Disney#RFV) gathered quotations of one sense; two senses failed and another needs a third quotation. After that RFV, a noun section and an adjective section were added. I'd like these verified as well. I have been looking for "Disneys" but finding scannos of "Disney's", and looking for "like a Disney" but finding what we (erroneously or otherwise) call "attributive use" of the noun ("like a Disney film"). - -sche (discuss) 21:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have deleted the Adjective and common Noun sections as RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)